TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 Michael Moore IS a Kerry supporter, he admitted as much on his interview with O'reilly. He basically stated in the same interview that his film was made to show people that Bush was incompetant. By taking many excerpts out of context to try to prove that the Bush administration lied, he is not stating fact, but using his own editing tools to further his opinion.If you don't like the Moore film as a good comparison to the Swift Boat Vet. ad then lets go back to the ads of the black man being dragged behind the truck that the Dems used in the last election. Just using this as an example, but again why is it that when a right wing group runs an ad that you dems don't like it is labeled slime, but when the left does it each of you ignore or rationalize it as the gospel truth. Furthermore, it seems that it hasn't taken long for Kerry to abandon his call for civility that he made at the Dem convention, he and his wife have been BASHING Bush every day since the end of the convention. 4 more years of hell isn't exactly positive campaigning. While Kerry didn't say this himself, he took great pleasure and gave hugs and high fives to all around him when it was said. In short, we sling "mud" because we have to do something with all the "mud" you guys throw at us. You didn't answer this question: Did you see F911? Give me more information on the ad you are referring to. Who ran it? Where? What did it say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Tailgating Rules 0 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 The Naacp, in the heat of the 2000 presidential election, produced, paid for, and ran an ad basically blaming Bush for the dragging death of one James Byrd. Mr Byrd was tragically dragged to his death behind a truck in Texas and his sister thereafter made pleas to then Governor Bush to pass hate crimes legislation in Texas. After stating (after Byrd's death) that he believed all crimes were "hate" crimes, Bush declined to get on the hate crimes legislation bandwagon. Because of this, the NAACP began running their ad blaming Bush for Byrd's murder. By their own admisssion, the Democrat machine known as the NAACP was trying to sway the election in the favor or their "endorsed" candidate, Al Gore. Knowing full well that the death of James Byrd came well before pleas to Gov. Bush to pass hate crimes legislation, they made these commercials to try to convince the American people that Byrd's death was Bush's fault. To this day, it may be the most slanderous political ad ever produced. (The Willie Horton ads admittedly come in a close second) The James Byrd ads will forever taint the left as political smear artists. Al Gore and the Dems never criticized the NAACP for running this ad. Makes the Swift boat ad seem tame. Forgive us on the right if we have no remorse for this most recent attack ad. After all we learned from the best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Tailgating Rules 0 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 No I have not seen the film, I refuse to give M Moore a dime of my hard earned money (my capitalist's right). However, I have researched the film in depth and have been able to form an educated opinion of the movie. And yes I have researched it from both sides of the political spectrum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 The Naacp, in the heat of the 2000 presidential election, produced, paid for, and ran an ad basically blaming Bush for the dragging death of one James Byrd. Mr Byrd was tragically dragged to his death behind a truck in Texas and his sister thereafter made pleas to then Governor Bush to pass hate crimes legislation in Texas. After stating (after Byrd's death) that he believed all crimes were "hate" crimes, Bush declined to get on the hate crimes legislation bandwagon. Because of this, the NAACP began running their ad blaming Bush for Byrd's murder. By their own admisssion, the Democrat machine known as the NAACP was trying to sway the election in the favor or their "endorsed" candidate, Al Gore. Knowing full well that the death of James Byrd came well before pleas to Gov. Bush to pass hate crimes legislation, they made these commercials to try to convince the American people that Byrd's death was Bush's fault.To this day, it may be the most slanderous political ad ever produced. (The Willie Horton ads admittedly come in a close second) The James Byrd ads will forever taint the left as political smear artists. Al Gore and the Dems never criticized the NAACP for running this ad. Makes the Swift boat ad seem tame. Forgive us on the right if we have no remorse for this most recent attack ad. After all we learned from the best. This appears to be the text:  Renee Mullins (voice over): I’m Renee Mullins, James Byrd’s daughter. On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation. We won’t be dragged away from our future.  http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html I think the phrasing, "it was like my father was killed all over again" is over the top, although I can't really say how she felt. Nonetheless, if this is the ad, I think your characterization of it is factually inaccurate: ... ran an ad basically blaming Bush for the dragging death of one James Byrd. ... Because of this, the NAACP began running their ad blaming Bush for Byrd's murder. ... Knowing full well that the death of James Byrd came well before pleas to Gov. Bush to pass hate crimes legislation, they made these commercials to try to convince the American people that Byrd's death was Bush's fault. I don't think anyone hearing that ad thinks that Bush is responsible the Byrd's death. The ad indicates the time frame was that the legislation was after Byrd's death. I suspect this ad was intended to motivate black voters to get out to the polls in the states it ran. According to what I found, it ran a week before the election. I doubt it was written with a broader audience in mind since "hate crime" bills aren't really a swing voter issue. Questioning someone's honor and integrity is. I would have less of an issue with the ad if it were genuinely designed to influence the legislation it mentions. Given the timing and the states it ran in-- which doesn't include Texas, the ad's purported purpose is obviously disingenuous. So are you saying two wrongs make a right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 No I have not seen the film, I refuse to give M Moore a dime of my hard earned money (my capitalist's right). However, I have researched the film in depth and have been able to form an educated opinion of the movie. And yes I have researched it from both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, it is your capitalist right to decide where you spend your money. And it is your first amendment right to voice strong opinions on things you have never actually seen. No offense, but is my common sense right to attribute less meaning and credibility to critiques by folks who haven't seen what they are critiquing. Imagine Ebert and Roeper: Ebert: What do you think of F911? Roeper: I haven't seen it, but I think it is a fabulous "must-see!" ...based on my meticulous research, of course. Ebert: Okay, that's a "thumbs up," then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Tailgating Rules 0 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 No I have not seen the film, I refuse to give M Moore a dime of my hard earned money (my capitalist's right). However, I have researched the film in depth and have been able to form an educated opinion of the movie. And yes I have researched it from both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, it is your capitalist right to decide where you spend your money. And it is your first amendment right to voice strong opinions on things you have never actually seen. No offense, but is my common sense right to attribute less meaning and credibility to critiques by folks who haven't seen what they are critiquing. Imagine Ebert and Roeper: Ebert: What do you think of F911? Roeper: I haven't seen it, but I think it is a fabulous "must-see!" ...based on my meticulous research, of course. Ebert: Okay, that's a "thumbs up," then. Never smoked crack...... know it's dangerous never cheated on my wife...... know it's immoral never met the pope...... understand he's a nice guy never been to Bermuda..... understand it's beautiful I could go on and on, but I know these things because they have been widely reported and with any due research one can make these conclusions very easily. Due to the publicity that accompanies F911 there is plenty of info available to come to an informed opinion without donating to the cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AU Tailgating Rules 0 Posted August 9, 2004 Share Posted August 9, 2004 The Naacp, in the heat of the 2000 presidential election, produced, paid for, and ran an ad basically blaming Bush for the dragging death of one James Byrd. Mr Byrd was tragically dragged to his death behind a truck in Texas and his sister thereafter made pleas to then Governor Bush to pass hate crimes legislation in Texas. After stating (after Byrd's death) that he believed all crimes were "hate" crimes, Bush declined to get on the hate crimes legislation bandwagon. Because of this, the NAACP began running their ad blaming Bush for Byrd's murder. By their own admisssion, the Democrat machine known as the NAACP was trying to sway the election in the favor or their "endorsed" candidate, Al Gore. Knowing full well that the death of James Byrd came well before pleas to Gov. Bush to pass hate crimes legislation, they made these commercials to try to convince the American people that Byrd's death was Bush's fault.To this day, it may be the most slanderous political ad ever produced. (The Willie Horton ads admittedly come in a close second) The James Byrd ads will forever taint the left as political smear artists. Al Gore and the Dems never criticized the NAACP for running this ad. Makes the Swift boat ad seem tame. Forgive us on the right if we have no remorse for this most recent attack ad. After all we learned from the best. This appears to be the text:  Renee Mullins (voice over): I’m Renee Mullins, James Byrd’s daughter. On June 7, 1998 in Texas my father was killed. He was beaten, chained, and then dragged 3 miles to his death, all because he was black. So when Governor George W. Bush refused to support hate-crime legislation, it was like my father was killed all over again. Call Governor George W. Bush and tell him to support hate-crime legislation. We won’t be dragged away from our future.  http://www.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/adnaacp.html I think the phrasing, "it was like my father was killed all over again" is over the top, although I can't really say how she felt. Nonetheless, if this is the ad, I think your characterization of it is factually inaccurate: ... ran an ad basically blaming Bush for the dragging death of one James Byrd. ... Because of this, the NAACP began running their ad blaming Bush for Byrd's murder. ... Knowing full well that the death of James Byrd came well before pleas to Gov. Bush to pass hate crimes legislation, they made these commercials to try to convince the American people that Byrd's death was Bush's fault. I don't think anyone hearing that ad thinks that Bush is responsible the Byrd's death. The ad indicates the time frame was that the legislation was after Byrd's death. I suspect this ad was intended to motivate black voters to get out to the polls in the states it ran. According to what I found, it ran a week before the election. I doubt it was written with a broader audience in mind since "hate crime" bills aren't really a swing voter issue. Questioning someone's honor and integrity is. I would have less of an issue with the ad if it were genuinely designed to influence the legislation it mentions. Given the timing and the states it ran in-- which doesn't include Texas, the ad's purported purpose is obviously disingenuous. So are you saying two wrongs make a right? The text does not do the ad justice. When viewed, the ad clearly "blamed" Bush for Byrd's death. Remember that the majority of Americans do not do the research required to make informed decisions, they simply believe anything they see on TV. (which is why attack ads work so well). To answer your question, two wrongs do not make a right, however that does not give the left the right to slam the right for what they see as a negative ad. Until your side can run a campaign with absolutely zero negative ads, you have no right to cry foul!!!!!! Same goes for our side. The other point you make about hate crimes not being a swing voter issue misses the point. This ad was yet another blatant exploitation of the black vote and shows that when all else fails on the Dem side of the arguement, play the race card, and you can get all the blacks to put you in office. How racist is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 9, 2004 Author Share Posted August 9, 2004 No I have not seen the film, I refuse to give M Moore a dime of my hard earned money (my capitalist's right). However, I have researched the film in depth and have been able to form an educated opinion of the movie. And yes I have researched it from both sides of the political spectrum. Yes, it is your capitalist right to decide where you spend your money. And it is your first amendment right to voice strong opinions on things you have never actually seen. No offense, but is my common sense right to attribute less meaning and credibility to critiques by folks who haven't seen what they are critiquing. Imagine Ebert and Roeper: Ebert: What do you think of F911? Roeper: I haven't seen it, but I think it is a fabulous "must-see!" ...based on my meticulous research, of course. Ebert: Okay, that's a "thumbs up," then. Never smoked crack...... know it's dangerous never cheated on my wife...... know it's immoral never met the pope...... understand he's a nice guy never been to Bermuda..... understand it's beautiful I could go on and on, but I know these things because they have been widely reported and with any due research one can make these conclusions very easily. Due to the publicity that accompanies F911 there is plenty of info available to come to an informed opinion without donating to the cause. Never smoked crack, can't describe the experience Never cheated on my wife, can't really describe what that's like The Pope's written books, I can't critique them, though I'm sure he's a smart and literate guy. I've heard Bermuda is beautiful, too. But if I write a travelogue on it, please don't plan your trip around it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 This is kinda funny: http://humaneventsonline.com.edgesuite.net/unfit_cover.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 For those interested, this is supposed to be the topic on Nightline tonight, last I heard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tiger88 934 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Hate crimes are one of the biggest jokes ever played on some of the american public, and I applaud Bush for recognizing this. Murder is freaking murder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DKW 86 7,479 Posted August 10, 2004 Share Posted August 10, 2004 Pretty funny. They dont change the bottom line on the cover. still reads "Speak out against Kerry." I guess you can say that Kerry is "having a fit" to commmand something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasTiger 13,119 Posted August 10, 2004 Author Share Posted August 10, 2004 Pretty funny. They dont change the bottom line on the cover. still reads "Speak out against Kerry." I guess you can say that Kerry is "having a fit" to commmand something. Maybe this "new" book tries to show both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.